Jesse F. Carter

The case involved an employee of Anheuser-Busch who was injured in a car accident in 1939 while working in South Carolina and sought workers' compensation benefits. The Industrial Commission initially ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the employer had fewer than fifteen employees in the state and had not filed a formal written election to be covered under the Act, but the Court of Common Pleas reversed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the employer's procurement and filing of a workers' compensation insurance policy with the Commission constituted substantial compliance with the election requirements, evidencing its intent to be subject to the Act. The court reasoned that this action, combined with the presumption that the employer had notified the employee, satisfied the statutory provisions for voluntary inclusion, granting the Commission jurisdiction over the claim.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the conviction of defendant Heyward for the murder of a rural policeman who was shot at the front door of his home while seeking information about arresting the defendant's brother. The defendant claimed self-defense and defense of his home, asserting that the officer unlawfully entered with a pistol drawn, but the state presented evidence that the officer merely knocked without entering or brandishing a weapon. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that conflicting evidence on whether there was an unlawful invasion required jury determination of malice and justification, that the trial judge properly instructed on relevant issues, and that the evidence supported submitting the case to the jury without abuse of discretion in denying a new trial.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute over a life insurance policy issued by Durham Life Insurance Company on the life of James M. DuBose, with Nollie H. DuBose as beneficiary; the policy paid $500 for natural death or $1,000 for accidental death but limited liability to premiums paid if death resulted from suicide in the first two years. The insured died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in October 1939, and the beneficiary sued for the double indemnity amount, alleging accidental death, while the insurer claimed suicide and offered only the premiums. At trial, the jury found in favor of the insurer on the issue of suicide. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial judge properly charged the jury on the burden of proof for suicide, that the evidence was sufficient to submit the question to the jury, and that any failure to instruct on the equipoise doctrine was harmless given the verdict and the parties' handling of the issue.

business & regulatory

In this wrongful death action, the plaintiff sought actual and punitive damages after her intestate, who had crashed his car onto railroad tracks and was weakened by injuries and blood loss, was struck and killed by a passing passenger train. The intestate had signaled an earlier freight train to stop; its crew removed the car but allegedly directed the injured man to cross the tracks to seek help despite knowing another train was due soon, without warning signals or adequate lighting. The jury awarded $3,500 in actual damages, and the trial court denied motions for nonsuit, directed verdict, and new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence permitted a reasonable inference the decedent was helpless on the tracks when hit, making questions of the railroad's negligence (excessive speed, failure to signal or maintain a lookout) and the decedent's contributory negligence issues properly submitted to the jury rather than matters of speculation.

torts & liability

This case involved the South Carolina Public Service Authority's condemnation of a one-half interest in Hanover plantation, after it had purchased the other half, with a dispute over the compensation due to the remaining owners. A jury in the Court of Common Pleas awarded the owners $19,250, and the trial judge denied the Authority's motion for a new trial or new trial nisi. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the verdict fell within the range of conflicting valuation testimony presented by witnesses and was not so excessive as to indicate caprice, passion, or prejudice; the trial judge therefore acted within his discretion in upholding it. The Court also rejected challenges to the admission of a witness's valuation testimony and to the trial judge's instructions urging the jury to reach a verdict, finding no error or coercion. Exceptions regarding other issues were abandoned.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a claim for $540 under the double indemnity clause of a life insurance policy on the plaintiff's mother, who was accidentally killed the day after the insurer's agent allegedly attempted to deliver the policy. The plaintiff asserted constructive delivery while the insured was in good health and waiver of the initial premium payment, while the defendant maintained that it had declined the application due to medical information and never issued the policy. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in submitting the waiver issue to the jury because the agent's alleged promise to pay the premium occurred before any policy existed and thus could not waive a condition precedent. The court also found prejudicial error in plaintiff's counsel's repeated improper argument about an alleged offer to influence a witness, which the trial judge had instructed the jury to disregard.

business & regulatoryprocedure